Many of those who voted in 2016’s referendum for the UK to leave the European Union believed that this would lead to a rapid reduction in immigration. A continuing debate ensued for example in the pages of H&D between keen Brexit campaigners (who broadly believed that leaving the EU would be a major blow against the multiracialist establishment) and more sceptical racial nationalists, some of whom feared that Brexit would actually worsen our country’s racial problems.

This week official statistics confirmed the sceptics’ worst fears. It is now apparent that almost from the moment of the 2016 referendum, net immigration from EU countries began to fall. In fact there is net emigration from the UK to the Central and Eastern European nations known as the EU8: i.e. Poland, Lithuania, Slovakia, Estonia, Latvia, Slovenia, Hungary and the Czech Republic.

Conservative-dominated governments for the past nine years have consistently stated their aim to reduce annual net immigration to below 100,000. If achieved, that would take us back to the start of the Blair / ‘New Labour’ era in 1997, when net immigration was 50,000.

Don’t forget that even then, there would be tens of thousands more people arriving in the UK than leaving, and these immigrants would be constantly adding to our existing non-British population.

Shockingly, none of those Conservative-led governments since 2010 has got anywhere near even their modest 100,000 immigrant target. The most recent figures for the year ending June 2018 show net immigration of 273,000.

And of these an increasing proportion are non-Europeans. In that same 12 month period, the number of non-EU citizens who are in the UK on a long term basis rose by 248,000, whereas the same figure for EU citizens was 74,000.

Daily Mail columnist Richard Littlejohn has a good rant this week at senior New Labour politicians of the Blair era, including successive Home Secretaries Jack Straw and David Blunkett. Like many of his ilk, Straw has recently taken to apologising for New Labour’s “mistake” of allowing vastly increased immigration after they came to power in 1997.

But the Mail columnist can’t be let off the hook too easily in his effort to score party political points against Labour. The ethnic transformation of Britain was not a consequence of the Blair years, it was an accomplished fact well before the 1997 Labour landslide.

New Labour’s main contribution to multiculturalism was to let in millions of Eastern Europeans, mainly from Poland and the Ukraine but increasingly also from other former Soviet bloc countries. Ironically this has resulted in many inner city areas of England becoming whiter, as these new immigrants often moved into areas that had been dominated by blacks and Asians who had arrived in earlier waves of immigration!

And that of course is the point: the turning point in the transformation of Britain was not Tony Blair’s arrival in Downing Street, but the catastrophic European civil war (better known as the Second World War) of 1939-45. Britain’s supposed ‘victory’ in that war not only bankrupted our national finances and liquidated our Empire, it discredited the very notion of racial nationalism. Anyone even daring to mention racial questions after 1945 could be demonised by opponents deploying the shadow of the legendary gas chambers to silence debate.

Britain started to become a multiracial country with the arrival of the Empire Windrush in 1948, and the process continued throughout the postwar decades. During most of this time – Richard Littlejohn should note – the Conservative Party was in government.

Nevertheless, the fact that even a semi-honest discussion of immigration is now beginning should certainly be welcomed. This week saw a key contribution to that long overdue debate with the publication of a book by the Oxford University economist Prof. Paul Collier – Exodus: Immigration and Multiculturalism in the 21st Century.

The book will be reviewed in the New Year by Heritage and Destiny. In the meantime readers can catch up with a lecture by Prof. Collier given at the LSE earlier this month. Once you cut through the inevitable politically correct introductions, you will hear that even the academic establishment is having to reassess its arguments.

Labour’s former immigration minister Barbara Roche hits out at her party leader’s planned policy changes.

Opinion polls suggest that by 2015 Ed Miliband will be Prime Minister. But in his anxiety to reassure voters that he understands their concerns about immigration, Miliband has sparked a row with Labour’s former immigration minister.

In an article for the Independent on Sunday on 20th January 2013, Barbara Roche – who was immigration minister in Tony Blair’s government from 1999 to 2001 – complains that “over the past few months there has been a concerted attack, from across the political spectrum, on the last Labour Government’s record on immigration.”

Mrs Roche – formerly Barbara Margolis – enjoyed a high flying career from her days as head girl of the Jews Free School in Camden (the largest Jewish school in Europe), via Lady Margaret Hall, Oxford, and several years as a Middle Temple barrister. Elected as MP for the multi-ethnic Hornsey & Wood Green in 1992, she lost her seat in 2005 – seen as a political casualty of Tony Blair’s Iraq war, which she had strongly supported but which was opposed by many of her constituents, not least Muslim voters.

In her IoS article Mrs Roche points out that during her time as a minister there was a panic over asylum seekers, but no real debate over immigration policy (as opposed to asylum). She argues that the assumption behind the 1971 Immigration Act – seeking to end “primary” immigration of the sort that had taken place on a large scale since the arrival of West Indian immigrants aboard the Empire Windrush in 1948 – was wrong. According to Mrs Roche, “legal migration is, in an age of globalisation, an economic, social and cultural good.”

Mrs Roche’s article was provoked by Ed Miliband’s BBC interview a few days earlier, the latest of a series in which the Labour leader indicated that the Blair and Brown governments had made mistakes in underestimating the scale of Eastern European immigration, and failing to understand immigration’s impact on White working class Britons.

In a speech to the Fabian Society on 12th January, Miliband had gone even further:
“High levels of migration were having huge effects on the lives of people in our country. And too often those in power seemed not to accept this. The fact that they didn’t explains partly why people turned against us in the last general election. So we must work to ensure that it never happens again.”

Needless to say, Labour has no intention of adopting a genuinely sane immigration policy. The internal dispute is over to what extent they should openly and proudly celebrate immigration (as Mrs Roche argues), or whether they should offer at least a pretence of caring about the White working class (as Mr Miliband seems to prefer).

Cynically, the workers will arrive under a theoretical six-month limit, which means they will pay no UK tax or national insurance, and will not appear on the official immigration figures. However no checks are in place to ensure that they go back to India when the six months are up!

Former British ambassador Sir Andrew Green commented that the arrangements:
“are quite clearly against the interests of British workers at a time of very high unemployment. That, presumably, is why the government has been keeping quiet about them.

“The six month limit, though completely unenforceable, keeps them out of the official immigration figures. However, in practice, this agreement, if signed, would open the door for thousands of new migrants.

“Of particular concern is our IT workforce – already being undercut by Indian IT companies – which will be put under further pressure.”

Bury South MP Ivan Lewis is the latest Labour spokesman to try to rediscover Labour’s links with English working class voters. Mr Lewis is “shadow culture secretary” in Ed Miliband’s shadow cabinet, and his outspoken comments come in a new volume of essays The Purple Book, published this week in advance of Labour’s conference at Liverpool at the end of September.

The title indicates an attempt by leading figures in Tony Blair’s New Labour to come to terms with the so-called “Blue Labour” critique of Blairism. “Blue Labour” was a set of ideas associated with the Jewish academic Maurice Glasman (now Lord Glasman) and Searchlight‘s favourite Labour MP Jon Cruddas. Their central insight was that in the pursuit of middle class floating voters, combined with liberal politically correct obsessions, New Labour had jettisoned the traditional values of their movement and was no longer seen by white working class voters as representing their tribal interests.

Lord Glasman was condemned by some of his former allies when he gave an interview this summer calling for a Labour anti-immigration policy:Britain is not an outpost of the UN. We have to put the people in this country first. The people who live here are the highest priority. We’ve got to listen and be with them. They’re in the right place – it’s us who’s not.

Ivan Lewis echoes some of these concerns in his own essay, as leaked to The Guardian, while not daring to go as far as Glasman. The Bury MP writes:The party’s instincts to be internationalist, liberal and champions of multicultural societies jar with the growing sense of insecurity of citizens buffeted by rapid economic and social change. Mistrust about Labour’s instincts and values on identity is one of the reasons why voters have rejected social democratic parties all over Europe.

He adds that these voters felt alienated from:a system which to some appeared to favour receiving benefits and choosing not to work and irresponsible bankers who caused the financial crisis but continued to receive excessive payoffs and bonuses while everyone else was paying the price of their recklessness. Others felt migration was changing the nature of their community and undermining Britain’s way of life.

After acknowledging the effect of immigration on Britain’s housing crisis, Lewis shows his real agenda. Far from seeking to restore the type of country that White Englishmen would recognise as their own, Lewis still wishes to make the Labour Party even more ethnically diverse, criticising:a Labour Party activist base that while becoming diverse still does not sufficiently look like Britain.

There is one form of diversity however that causes particular upset to Ivan Lewis, who before becoming an MP was chief executive of the Manchester Jewish Federation:Labour and the previous Tory governments should have acted earlier to tackle radicalisation in some Muslim communities by adopting a zero tolerance approach to anyone including religious leaders who preached hate, and by refusing to legitimise organisations unwilling to condemn extremism or the use of violence.

Notice Mr Lewis’s careful language. He isn’t just talking about anti-British terrorism, he is insisting that organisations must condemn “the use of violence”. It’s a fair bet that he doesn’t want to condemn the violence of the Israeli government in their assault on Gaza, and certainly not condemn the six decades of Zionist violence that forged the piracy of Palestine.

No: it’s a safe bet that Mr Lewis aims to force British based organisations to condemn anti-Israeli violence, in other words to take sides with the Zionist state against the people of Palestine and Lebanon. The abandoned English working class are hoping for decent housing, jobs and health services; a crackdown on crime; and the reversal of more than half a century of mass immigration. But Mr Lewis pays lip service to these concerns, while pursuing quite another, utterly alien agenda.

A new treaty is set to guarantee unlimited Indian immigration into Britain

Long suffering British voters are used to politicians ditching their immigration promises – but Conservative Prime Minister David Cameron is setting a new record by breaking his word less than six months after taking office!

Speaking to business leaders at the CBI this week Cameron assured his audience that “we will not impede you from attracting the best talent from around the world”, regardless of his party’s election pledge to impose a cap on immigration. His spokesman later underlined this policy reversal: “We will be looking at the level of that [immigration] cap and at the way in which it operates and making sure that works in a way that allows business to bring the people that they need into the UK.” In other words the immigration cap will be meaningless.

British dole queues set to lengthen as immigration soars

Moreover according to a new report by Migrationwatch UK, the EU/India Free Trade Agreement due to be signed in a few weeks time will prevent Britain from restricting immigration from India, since it explicitly allows Indian companies to transfer any number of employees from India to EU countries including the UK.

The prospective immigrant needs only to have worked for 12 months in India for the company concerned, and he/she can then be transferred to the UK with no questions asked. There is no need for the company to show that suitable British workers could not be recruited for the vacancy. There is no limit to the number of such immigrants who can use this loophole.

Sir Andrew Green of Migrationwatch commented:It is time the government came clean about what is in this agreement. It looks as though the Indians are about to drive a bullock and cart through Britain’s immigration system despite government talk about creating jobs in the private sector. There is no point in a limit on economic migration if specialists from India are excluded from the cap by a separate agreement. British IT workers are already suffering the impact on jobs of tens of thousands of Indian IT staff working in Britain; we already have 48,000 unemployed British IT specialists.

Words fail me... If this goes ahead, people should be taking to the streets in their millions over it!

DAILY TELEGRAPH, 10 Feb 2010: Britain could be forced to help bail-out some of Europe’s crisis-hit economies with tens of billions of pounds, it is feared. (Britain contributes 20 per cent of the EU budget.)

Gordon Brown is under mounting pressure from MPs on all sides to ensure that only eurozone countries contribute to a bail-out of Greece, whose economy is teetering on the brink of collapse.

The Prime Minister will this morning arrive in Brussels for a crucial European leaders’ summit amid fears that the UK could get dragged into a full European Union bail out plan.

Downing Street, however, insisted that the focus of responsibility should fall on the eurozone countries and, failing that, a G20 group of leading nations solution.

Last night European officials were involved in furious efforts to try and complete a €20 billion rescue package, designed to halt the looming crisis in Greece before it spreads to other countries. France and Germany were at the forefront of the eurozone negotiations.

However, Mr Brown – when challenged in the Commons over Britain’s position – was unable to rule out Britain’s involvement in a a Greek rescue package.

Was this author was too scared to accuse the Cultural Marxists running New Labour of outright treason? The info obtained by Migration Watch in their Freedom of Information request proves, not just treason, but attempted genocide of whites within the British Isles. Racial nationalists have been vindicated.

Telegraph Blogs, 10 Feb 2010: Incredible. I am stunned. Back in October Andrew Neather, a former Labour party speechwriter, let the cat out the bag when he said that the Government had encouraged immigration “to rub the Right’s nose in diversity”. But while Neather quickly backtracked, documents now released under the Freedom of Information Act suggest that he was telling the truth. Rather than being the result only of incompetence or a short-term economic measure to reduce inflation, Labour’s policy of runaway immigration was a deliberate and cynical attempt to change the face of British society.

The document released yesterday suggested that Labour originally pursued a different direction. It was published under the title “Migration: an economic and social analysis” but the removal of significant extracts suggested that officials or ministers were nervous over references to “social objectives”.

The original paper called for the need of a new framework for thinking about migration policy but the concluding phrase — “if we are to maximise the contribution of migration to the Government’s economic and social objectives” — was edited out.

The Government has been accused of pursuing a secret policy of encouraging mass immigration for its own political ends. (Voting trends indicate that migrants and their descendants are much more likely to vote Labour.)

DAILY TELEGRAPH, 9 Feb 2010: The release of a previously unseen document suggested that Labour’s migration policy over the past decade had been aimed not just at meeting the country’s economic needs, but also the Government’s “social objectives”.

The paper said migration would “enhance economic growth” and made clear that trying to halt or reverse it could be “economically damaging”. But it also stated that immigration had general “benefits” and that a new policy framework was needed to “maximise” the contribution of migration to the Government’s wider social aims.

The Government has always denied that social engineering played a part in its migration policy.

However, the paper, which was written in 2000 at a time when immigration began to increase dramatically, said controls were contrary to its policy objectives and could lead to “social exclusion”.

Even though this is Labour’s little ‘baby’, truth is Cameron’s lot are just as likely to go ahead with it if they win the next GE.

FROM THE TWISTED MIND OF HARRIET HARMAN, 07 Jan 2010:

October 2010

Most of the provisions of the [Discrimination Bill, known in ‘polite’ and deceitful circles as the] Equality Bill are expected to come into force as the Equality Act 2010. The purposes of this legislation are to harmonise the different strands of discrimination law and strengthen protection. Changes in the draft bill include:

Extending the prohibition on “associative and perceptive” discrimination and harassment to all discrimination strands. [I.e. If you were found guilty of discriminating against someone else and I perceived that you were discriminating against me, then you must have been!]

Employers will be explicitly liable for failing to prevent harassment by third parties. [I.e. Your employers will become the new Equality Thought Police to prevent themselves being heavily sued – thanks for your understanding, boss!]